Like Goldilocks, mice know a bed that's 'just right' - New Scientist
It seems like every day there is a study indicating that lowly mammals (and birds) are smarter than we thought. Mind you, I am not entirely sure if discovering what some rodents seem to understand has all that much point, really. For example:
Just like Goldilocks, mice have an innate sense of what makes a good bed: a specific group of cells in their brains becomes active when they see a potential nesting spot – but only if it perfectly matches their size...
The researchers say that the findings demonstrate that rodents can understand some abstract concepts, such as the idea of a "bed" that is independent from specific nesting bowls.
Just to rule out the possibility that they actually run the universe, perhaps someone should sit a few mice in front of a TV flashing "E= mc2" and other basic equations, and see if their brain cells click away in recognition. (I like to think that I cover all possibilities.)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Population woes?
No one is willing to address the accelerating growth in the world's population | Comment | The Observer
This article appeared last week, but it's worth reading, including the comments.
The basic argument is that, even with low birth rates in the richer West, the UN predicts population increases to add perhaps another 2-3 billion to the planet by mid century. The writer thinks this a problem for controlling greenhouse gases. The first comment, however, makes this point:
World population was estimated at 2.5 billion in 1950. Between 2000 and 2050, the population is expected to triple in Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, the Congos, East Timor, Guinea-Buissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger and Uganda.
However, half of the global increase of 2.5 billion to 2050 will be concentrated in these countries, ranked from most to least : India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, DR Congo, Uganda [ assuming HIV epidemic is ameliorated ], the USA, Ethopia and China.
The article conflates two differing problems : environmental impact and economic development/ social impact. The greatest environmental impact of world population will occur in China and America. The 13 countries I have listed which will have the most rapid population rises, are actually some of the world's poorest. Each inhabitant here has a minimal environmental impact with respect to CO2 etc. It is not clear whether any of the countries whose population is expected to triple by 2050 will actually be functioning, governable states because of the diminishing per capita resources.
Tim Worstoll points out that the IPPC and Stern have already taken into account possible increases in population.
It also appears from the comments that some population forecasts expect a rapid growth to 9 billion, but then a rapid decline due to the falling birthrates back to 6 billion or less by the end of the century.
Certainly, the already dramatically low birthrate is going to affect many countries well before 2050:
The detailed projections for individual countries show 33 countries with smaller populations in 2050 than today. Japan is expected to be 14 per cent smaller; Italy 22 per cent; and a slew of eastern European countries, including Russia and Ukraine, will see their populations crash by between 30 and 50 per cent.
Population dynamics are going to be weird over the next century.
This article appeared last week, but it's worth reading, including the comments.
The basic argument is that, even with low birth rates in the richer West, the UN predicts population increases to add perhaps another 2-3 billion to the planet by mid century. The writer thinks this a problem for controlling greenhouse gases. The first comment, however, makes this point:
World population was estimated at 2.5 billion in 1950. Between 2000 and 2050, the population is expected to triple in Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, the Congos, East Timor, Guinea-Buissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger and Uganda.
However, half of the global increase of 2.5 billion to 2050 will be concentrated in these countries, ranked from most to least : India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, DR Congo, Uganda [ assuming HIV epidemic is ameliorated ], the USA, Ethopia and China.
The article conflates two differing problems : environmental impact and economic development/ social impact. The greatest environmental impact of world population will occur in China and America. The 13 countries I have listed which will have the most rapid population rises, are actually some of the world's poorest. Each inhabitant here has a minimal environmental impact with respect to CO2 etc. It is not clear whether any of the countries whose population is expected to triple by 2050 will actually be functioning, governable states because of the diminishing per capita resources.
Tim Worstoll points out that the IPPC and Stern have already taken into account possible increases in population.
It also appears from the comments that some population forecasts expect a rapid growth to 9 billion, but then a rapid decline due to the falling birthrates back to 6 billion or less by the end of the century.
Certainly, the already dramatically low birthrate is going to affect many countries well before 2050:
The detailed projections for individual countries show 33 countries with smaller populations in 2050 than today. Japan is expected to be 14 per cent smaller; Italy 22 per cent; and a slew of eastern European countries, including Russia and Ukraine, will see their populations crash by between 30 and 50 per cent.
Population dynamics are going to be weird over the next century.
Take your pills
Angioplasty no better than drugs for pre-heart attack patients, study finds - Los Angeles Times
It's pretty fascinating how a new medical procedure seems to take off in popularity with doctors, well before the studies are in that properly compare it with other treatments. The story above is a fine example.
I was also surprised to see just how much money in the stent business:
The findings deal another significant blow to the stent industry, which sells an estimated $3.2-billion worth of stents each year in the United States. As many as 65% of the estimated 1 million stenting procedures performed each year occur in such patients at a cost of about $40,000 per surgery.
That's a lot of money on bits of metal that don't seem so effective (at least for pre-heart attack patients) after all.
It's pretty fascinating how a new medical procedure seems to take off in popularity with doctors, well before the studies are in that properly compare it with other treatments. The story above is a fine example.
I was also surprised to see just how much money in the stent business:
The findings deal another significant blow to the stent industry, which sells an estimated $3.2-billion worth of stents each year in the United States. As many as 65% of the estimated 1 million stenting procedures performed each year occur in such patients at a cost of about $40,000 per surgery.
That's a lot of money on bits of metal that don't seem so effective (at least for pre-heart attack patients) after all.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Rowan frets again
Archbishop urges church to consider slavery reparations | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
The Archbishop of Canterbury seems well intentioned, but as I noted in an earlier post, gets far too much enjoyment from waffling on to excess. From the story above:
The Bishop of Exeter and three business colleagues were paid nearly £13,000 to compensate them for the loss of 665 slaves in 1833.
Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4's Trade Roots programme organisations that received compensation in the 1830s were still "living off the historical legacy" of slavery.
However, he added: "While it sounds simple to say ... we should pass on the reparation that was received, exactly to whom?
"Exactly where does it go? And exactly how does it differ from the various ways in which we try to interact now with the effects of that in terms of aid and development and so forth?
"So I haven't got a quick solution to that. I think we need to be asking the question and working at it. That, I think, we're beginning to do."
By the way, if you think John Howard lets his eyebrows get too big, check out the fierce competition he faces from the Archbishop. It's a sin against grooming, I say.
The Archbishop of Canterbury seems well intentioned, but as I noted in an earlier post, gets far too much enjoyment from waffling on to excess. From the story above:
The Bishop of Exeter and three business colleagues were paid nearly £13,000 to compensate them for the loss of 665 slaves in 1833.
Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4's Trade Roots programme organisations that received compensation in the 1830s were still "living off the historical legacy" of slavery.
However, he added: "While it sounds simple to say ... we should pass on the reparation that was received, exactly to whom?
"Exactly where does it go? And exactly how does it differ from the various ways in which we try to interact now with the effects of that in terms of aid and development and so forth?
"So I haven't got a quick solution to that. I think we need to be asking the question and working at it. That, I think, we're beginning to do."
By the way, if you think John Howard lets his eyebrows get too big, check out the fierce competition he faces from the Archbishop. It's a sin against grooming, I say.
Back
The Comment is Free section of The Guardian website is always worth checking. Today I liked this article by Francis Fukuyama about Japan and its difficulties in facing up to its past.
(There is also a photo of him. Can't recall ever seeing him before.)
(There is also a photo of him. Can't recall ever seeing him before.)
Friday, March 23, 2007
Away
I probably can't post for a few days. Don't forget to come back!
Meanwhile, here's a very amateur video done to a 20 year old They Might be Giants song that ended their first album. It's not exciting, but has a certain charm of watching some happy youngsters amusing themselves. Cheers.
Meanwhile, here's a very amateur video done to a 20 year old They Might be Giants song that ended their first album. It's not exciting, but has a certain charm of watching some happy youngsters amusing themselves. Cheers.
Future eaters from the ALP
I find it rather puzzling politics that Rudd should want to use income from the future fund to pay for something that, on the face of it, is capable of being paid for from the "normal" current budget surplus. Not only that, he says on 7.30 Report that he may do it again for things that are needed.
Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning seemed to be pressing the line that Rudd is leaving himself wide open for attack on economic credentials here; Michelle Gratton seemed to think it was too early to tell if the public will notice.
A good summary of the issues, and the hypocrisy of the ALP on this, is at Niner Charlie.
Here some of my own points on this:
1. I would like to know how rubbery are the figures thrown about for how faster broadband will result in greater productivity and a stronger economy. I mean, businesses that really need faster broadband don't set up in an area with fast broadband access problems, do they? Faster broadband seems to me to mainly the concern of domestic users, with the big problem being the "black spots" that currently exist even in urban areas.
2. Predictions that the Future Fund is ahead of schedule, or won't be called on as soon as earlier predicted, seem rather dangerous. No one seems to be factoring in the possibility of major world economic problems (I assume stemming from a dramatic collapse in China) within the next decade or so.
3. Is this costing for the project accurate or rubbery? The Age, as one might expect, thinks it is a great idea, and mentions Singapore spending $5 billion to get optical fibre to every user. I know the Australian plan would not be the same, but still the cost sounds low to me.
Interesting days ahead.
Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning seemed to be pressing the line that Rudd is leaving himself wide open for attack on economic credentials here; Michelle Gratton seemed to think it was too early to tell if the public will notice.
A good summary of the issues, and the hypocrisy of the ALP on this, is at Niner Charlie.
Here some of my own points on this:
1. I would like to know how rubbery are the figures thrown about for how faster broadband will result in greater productivity and a stronger economy. I mean, businesses that really need faster broadband don't set up in an area with fast broadband access problems, do they? Faster broadband seems to me to mainly the concern of domestic users, with the big problem being the "black spots" that currently exist even in urban areas.
2. Predictions that the Future Fund is ahead of schedule, or won't be called on as soon as earlier predicted, seem rather dangerous. No one seems to be factoring in the possibility of major world economic problems (I assume stemming from a dramatic collapse in China) within the next decade or so.
3. Is this costing for the project accurate or rubbery? The Age, as one might expect, thinks it is a great idea, and mentions Singapore spending $5 billion to get optical fibre to every user. I know the Australian plan would not be the same, but still the cost sounds low to me.
Interesting days ahead.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The gods of bodily function
Gold poop | The Japan Times Online
This somewhat interesting article starts by examining the story behind a novelty charm from Japan (yes, a gold poo), but Shinto gods get a mention too:
...there is a long history of poo-related worship in Japan, according to Mitsuhashi.
The name haniyasu is thought to mean "to knead earth so as to make it soft." Kojiki relates that the two kami Haniyasubiko no kami and Haniyasubime no kami were produced from Izanami's feces.
Talk about an inauspicious start to a career as a divinity...
This somewhat interesting article starts by examining the story behind a novelty charm from Japan (yes, a gold poo), but Shinto gods get a mention too:
...there is a long history of poo-related worship in Japan, according to Mitsuhashi.
"There are more gods in the Shinto religion than it is possible to count, and they reside just about everywhere, inhabiting natural things like trees, rocks and waterfalls," he said. "Bodily functions are very important -- think what a problem it would be if a person couldn't defecate or urinate properly -- so it's natural that people worshipped deities linked to these functions."
The earliest recorded example is a god called Haniyasu, who is mentioned in the Nihon Shoki, an eighth-century text that is one of the most important records of ancient beliefs and practices. Haniyasu is still worshipped at Haruna Jinja, a well-known shrine in Gunma Prefecture. And until fairly recently, it was common to worship deities known collectively as benjo-gami (privy gods) by placing religious figures in or under the privy.
Mitsuhashi, who is in his 60s, remembers his parents burying a pair of god figures, one male and one female, under the privy in his childhood home.
Well, how does one become a god associated with poo? The Encyclopaedia of Shinto notes:The name haniyasu is thought to mean "to knead earth so as to make it soft." Kojiki relates that the two kami Haniyasubiko no kami and Haniyasubime no kami were produced from Izanami's feces.
Talk about an inauspicious start to a career as a divinity...
Warts and all
Here's a story about a study on the best way to get rid of warts. (Duct tape verses freezing.)
As a sufferer of the occasional persistent knee or hand wart as a child, I still recommend the tried and true method of rubbing it with a small piece of meat and burying it. As the meat rots, the wart will go.
I have long felt that there is a possible scientific explanation for this. I don't think it is very common knowledge that hypnotism has been medically studied and proven as often being an effective treatment for warts. (In fact, in one study the patient was hypnotised and told to reduce the warts on one side of their body only - and it worked!)
This report of success is of particular interest because:
Of note is the fact that she had low expectations regarding the benefit to be derived from hypnosis and did not at first appear to be highly hypnotizable.
So, the rotting meat method, as well as other folk remedies, are just a subtle form of subconscious suggestion that can work even if your rational mind thinks "this is ridiculous".
That hypnotism should work at all on warts is, I reckon, pretty amazing.
It also seems odd that, as far as I know, the visualisation methods for assisting cancer treatment are now not believed to be effective, yet one would have thought that the hypnotism warts analogy would suggest it could.
Other folk remedies for warts are around, but I like the earthy nature of the rotting meat method. It makes sense to me that my subconscious should believe it. (I mean, rubbing a coin on it and burying it, why should that work?)
As a sufferer of the occasional persistent knee or hand wart as a child, I still recommend the tried and true method of rubbing it with a small piece of meat and burying it. As the meat rots, the wart will go.
I have long felt that there is a possible scientific explanation for this. I don't think it is very common knowledge that hypnotism has been medically studied and proven as often being an effective treatment for warts. (In fact, in one study the patient was hypnotised and told to reduce the warts on one side of their body only - and it worked!)
This report of success is of particular interest because:
Of note is the fact that she had low expectations regarding the benefit to be derived from hypnosis and did not at first appear to be highly hypnotizable.
So, the rotting meat method, as well as other folk remedies, are just a subtle form of subconscious suggestion that can work even if your rational mind thinks "this is ridiculous".
That hypnotism should work at all on warts is, I reckon, pretty amazing.
It also seems odd that, as far as I know, the visualisation methods for assisting cancer treatment are now not believed to be effective, yet one would have thought that the hypnotism warts analogy would suggest it could.
Other folk remedies for warts are around, but I like the earthy nature of the rotting meat method. It makes sense to me that my subconscious should believe it. (I mean, rubbing a coin on it and burying it, why should that work?)
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Peter Singer and intuition
Reason with yourself | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited
See the link above for an interesting article by Peter Singer in the Guardian. Given my general dislike of his work, it is gratifying to see that the great majority of reader comments are critical of his argument.
The article is about moral intuitions, and research that indicates how cross-cultural they are. Singer argues:
...the fact that our moral intuitions are universal and part of our human nature does not mean that they are right. On the contrary, these findings should make us more sceptical about relying on our intuitions. There is, after all, no ethical significance in the fact that one method of harming others has existed for most of our evolutionary history, and the other is relatively new. Blowing up people with bombs is no better than clubbing them to death. And the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about. So we should think for ourselves, not just listen to our intuitions.
While it would be wrong to say that reason has no place in moral decision making, it seems to me that Singer's point is exactly the opposite lesson that one should learn from modern history.
The great warning from the 20th century is surely that rational and logical arguments can be extremely successful in convincing large numbers of people to act in a way that is appallingly immoral and contrary to moral intuition. If anything, the remedy for the genocides, political pogroms and ideologically induced famines would have been an emphasis on moral intuition, not scepticism of it.
Singer's article deals with a philosopher's hypothetical dilemma involving a runaway rail trolley and how to think about the most moral action to take, given that all outcomes will involve at least some loss of life. For those who know Singer's controversial views on the disabled, this comment by "Shrover" following the Guardian article is pretty funny:
Prof Singer omitted his preferred scenario, where you can push a disabled person in front of the trolley and save five lives without costing one.
The best simple explanation of the main objection to Singer's utilitarian approach is given by "Calgacus" further down in the comments:
UPDATE: by coincidence (I think), there are a couple of stories relating to the "runaway train" moral dilemma at news@nature and Scientific American. The news @nature story puts it this way:
A runaway train is speeding down the tracks towards five workmen. You and a stranger are standing on a bridge over the track. The only way to save the five is to push the stranger in front of the train to his death, and his body will stop it from reaching them.
Do you push him?
Most people answer that they could not personally push a stranger to his death, even though more lives would be saved than lost. But a new study published online in Nature finds that people with damage to a particular part of the frontal lobe reach the opposite — alarmingly utilitarian — conclusion.
I like the phrase "alarmingly utilitarian"! My sentiments exactly.
Over at the Scientific American report, though, comes this quote, indicating a much more "scientific" attitude to the meaning of the study (emphasis mine):
"The decisions of VMPC patients are not amoral," says senior study author Antonio Damasio, formerly a University of Iowa neurologist and now director of the University of Southern California Brain and Creativity Institute. "They are just different from the decisions of other subjects." He adds that these subjects seem to lack the human conflict between emotion and reason. "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life," says Ralph Adolphs, a neuroscientist at the California Institute of Technology. "They lack empathy and compassion."
Funny how scientists often don't like to use the word "amoral", which goes back to my original point about Singer's article.
See the link above for an interesting article by Peter Singer in the Guardian. Given my general dislike of his work, it is gratifying to see that the great majority of reader comments are critical of his argument.
The article is about moral intuitions, and research that indicates how cross-cultural they are. Singer argues:
...the fact that our moral intuitions are universal and part of our human nature does not mean that they are right. On the contrary, these findings should make us more sceptical about relying on our intuitions. There is, after all, no ethical significance in the fact that one method of harming others has existed for most of our evolutionary history, and the other is relatively new. Blowing up people with bombs is no better than clubbing them to death. And the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about. So we should think for ourselves, not just listen to our intuitions.
While it would be wrong to say that reason has no place in moral decision making, it seems to me that Singer's point is exactly the opposite lesson that one should learn from modern history.
The great warning from the 20th century is surely that rational and logical arguments can be extremely successful in convincing large numbers of people to act in a way that is appallingly immoral and contrary to moral intuition. If anything, the remedy for the genocides, political pogroms and ideologically induced famines would have been an emphasis on moral intuition, not scepticism of it.
Singer's article deals with a philosopher's hypothetical dilemma involving a runaway rail trolley and how to think about the most moral action to take, given that all outcomes will involve at least some loss of life. For those who know Singer's controversial views on the disabled, this comment by "Shrover" following the Guardian article is pretty funny:
Prof Singer omitted his preferred scenario, where you can push a disabled person in front of the trolley and save five lives without costing one.
The best simple explanation of the main objection to Singer's utilitarian approach is given by "Calgacus" further down in the comments:
Singer is obviously a utilitarian. Utilitarianism is very limited on its own and leads to many obviously wrong actions - only a combination of utilitarianism with deontological principles can give a good guide to moral choices.
In other words a result which e.g saves one more life than it costs is not necessarily right if it involves murdering someone. We should do what avoids suffering/produces happiness for the greatest number of people provided that we don't do anything clearly wrong in the process (e.g stealing food from someone who has more than they need may be moral if you're starving but murdering someone never is).
My distrust of Singer is further reinforced.UPDATE: by coincidence (I think), there are a couple of stories relating to the "runaway train" moral dilemma at news@nature and Scientific American. The news @nature story puts it this way:
A runaway train is speeding down the tracks towards five workmen. You and a stranger are standing on a bridge over the track. The only way to save the five is to push the stranger in front of the train to his death, and his body will stop it from reaching them.
Do you push him?
Most people answer that they could not personally push a stranger to his death, even though more lives would be saved than lost. But a new study published online in Nature finds that people with damage to a particular part of the frontal lobe reach the opposite — alarmingly utilitarian — conclusion.
I like the phrase "alarmingly utilitarian"! My sentiments exactly.
Over at the Scientific American report, though, comes this quote, indicating a much more "scientific" attitude to the meaning of the study (emphasis mine):
"The decisions of VMPC patients are not amoral," says senior study author Antonio Damasio, formerly a University of Iowa neurologist and now director of the University of Southern California Brain and Creativity Institute. "They are just different from the decisions of other subjects." He adds that these subjects seem to lack the human conflict between emotion and reason. "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life," says Ralph Adolphs, a neuroscientist at the California Institute of Technology. "They lack empathy and compassion."
Funny how scientists often don't like to use the word "amoral", which goes back to my original point about Singer's article.
Nazi Skinheads of Russia
Foreign Correspondent - 20/03/2007: Russia - Hate Crimes
Foreign Correspondent last night had a fascinating and disturbing account of the rise of neo-Nazi skinheads in St Petersburg, of all places. I would not have expected thugs with stylised swastikas on their shirts to be in Russia, but there you go.
They like to bash the non Slavic types (or even those who are just unlucky enough to look ethnic) and have killed many.
The 2 thugs who let themselves be interviewed no doubt got off on the publicity (with lots of shots of them walking the streets looking intimidating and giving the odd Nazi salute to no one in particular,) but the stories of the children attacked by such groups were particularly upsetting. (As was the fact that the police, courts and politicians don't seem to be taking the problem too seriously.)
I expect the story will be available on video soon on the Foreign Correspondent site linked above. It is well worth watching.
Foreign Correspondent last night had a fascinating and disturbing account of the rise of neo-Nazi skinheads in St Petersburg, of all places. I would not have expected thugs with stylised swastikas on their shirts to be in Russia, but there you go.
They like to bash the non Slavic types (or even those who are just unlucky enough to look ethnic) and have killed many.
The 2 thugs who let themselves be interviewed no doubt got off on the publicity (with lots of shots of them walking the streets looking intimidating and giving the odd Nazi salute to no one in particular,) but the stories of the children attacked by such groups were particularly upsetting. (As was the fact that the police, courts and politicians don't seem to be taking the problem too seriously.)
I expect the story will be available on video soon on the Foreign Correspondent site linked above. It is well worth watching.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
No going back
So, Mr. Hitchens, weren't you wrong about Iraq? - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine
Christopher Hitchens comes outs swinging against any suggestion that he should admit the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Good argument well made, in my opinion.
Christopher Hitchens comes outs swinging against any suggestion that he should admit the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Good argument well made, in my opinion.
Scepticism on the EU and CO2
Comment is free: High hopes
Bjorn Lomborg's comment piece on the recent EU announcements about CO2 cuts is well worth reading. A few key extracts:
Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem. Yet the current cut-emissions-now-before-it-is-too-late mindset neglects the fact that the world has no sensible short-term solutions.
This seems to be why we focus on feel-good approaches like the Kyoto Protocol, whose fundamental problem has always been that it is simultaneously impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential, and inordinately expensive. It required such big reductions that only few countries could live up to it. ...
We will not be able to solve global warming over the next decades, but only the next half or full century. We need to find a viable, long-term strategy that is smart, equitable, and doesn't require inordinate sacrifice for trivial benefits. Fortunately, there is such a strategy: research and development. Investing in R&D of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would leave future generations able to make serious and yet economically feasible and advantageous cuts. A new global warming treaty should mandate spending 0.05% of GDP on R&D in the future. It would be much cheaper, yet do much more good in the long run.
Bjorn Lomborg's comment piece on the recent EU announcements about CO2 cuts is well worth reading. A few key extracts:
Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem. Yet the current cut-emissions-now-before-it-is-too-late mindset neglects the fact that the world has no sensible short-term solutions.
This seems to be why we focus on feel-good approaches like the Kyoto Protocol, whose fundamental problem has always been that it is simultaneously impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential, and inordinately expensive. It required such big reductions that only few countries could live up to it. ...
We will not be able to solve global warming over the next decades, but only the next half or full century. We need to find a viable, long-term strategy that is smart, equitable, and doesn't require inordinate sacrifice for trivial benefits. Fortunately, there is such a strategy: research and development. Investing in R&D of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would leave future generations able to make serious and yet economically feasible and advantageous cuts. A new global warming treaty should mandate spending 0.05% of GDP on R&D in the future. It would be much cheaper, yet do much more good in the long run.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Get a grip
Lateline tonight is reporting that Newspoll tomorrow will show a 2 party preferred vote of 61% to Labor and 39% to the Libs.
A few weeks ago, Kevin Rudd said that he intended "playing with" John Howard's mind.
I reckon that the electorate has decided to get in first. In my opinion, there's no way the current polling results show a real intention to abandon Howard in such a decisive way. They're just toying with him.
Andrew Bolt seemed unusually pessimistic on Insiders this week too. But I did agree with Matt Price's Saturday column that argued that Abbott's "character attack" on Rudd was nothing spectacular as far as these things go. I liked this paragraph (referring to Abbott's atack):
All right, a little nasty (mud level: medium) but Julia Gillard must have been struck with severe temporary amnesia when she ripped into Abbott for sinking to "a new low in Australian politics". Hyperbole, for sure, especially when you remember Gillard's fondness for Mark Latham included qualified admiration for his diaries (mud level: mayday, mayday, everybody's drowwwnninn ...)
I don't find Swan, Gillard and Rudd's media performances of late particularly impressive. In fact, the "tired and arrogant" government message (which was obviously promoted as their message for the week) strikes me as particularly fake. For example, one of the major issues that seems to be working against the government is the perception of its IR laws, but these are clearly a case of a reforming step too far, and not a problem arising from a lack of ideas. The Keating government, on the other hand, really did seem to have hit the a wall as far as policy innovation was concerned.
So, people of Australia, get a grip and stop toying with the PM. Wait for real policy details from Labor, at least.
A few weeks ago, Kevin Rudd said that he intended "playing with" John Howard's mind.
I reckon that the electorate has decided to get in first. In my opinion, there's no way the current polling results show a real intention to abandon Howard in such a decisive way. They're just toying with him.
Andrew Bolt seemed unusually pessimistic on Insiders this week too. But I did agree with Matt Price's Saturday column that argued that Abbott's "character attack" on Rudd was nothing spectacular as far as these things go. I liked this paragraph (referring to Abbott's atack):
All right, a little nasty (mud level: medium) but Julia Gillard must have been struck with severe temporary amnesia when she ripped into Abbott for sinking to "a new low in Australian politics". Hyperbole, for sure, especially when you remember Gillard's fondness for Mark Latham included qualified admiration for his diaries (mud level: mayday, mayday, everybody's drowwwnninn ...)
I don't find Swan, Gillard and Rudd's media performances of late particularly impressive. In fact, the "tired and arrogant" government message (which was obviously promoted as their message for the week) strikes me as particularly fake. For example, one of the major issues that seems to be working against the government is the perception of its IR laws, but these are clearly a case of a reforming step too far, and not a problem arising from a lack of ideas. The Keating government, on the other hand, really did seem to have hit the a wall as far as policy innovation was concerned.
So, people of Australia, get a grip and stop toying with the PM. Wait for real policy details from Labor, at least.
Where the deer and the pygmy rabbits play
20 pygmy rabbits released in Washington - Los Angeles Times
It's cute furry animal day here today, obviously. Have a look at the photo in the story above. It's a very cute rabbit. (Can you tickle them, I wonder?) According to the article:
They are the smallest rabbits in the United States and one of only two types in North America that dig their own burrows. Adults weigh about a pound, and measure a foot long
In the US, they are releasing them into the wild to revive a very small natural population.
It strikes me as a little odd that in some countries rabbits can live without causing environmental havoc, yet in Australia they became a devastating plague. (And Queensland is still so paranoid about them that you still can't even own one as a pet.)
I guess it all something to do with natural predators, and delicate balances, etc. I don't know, I sort of regret that squirrels were never imported here.
(I didn't so biology as a separate subject in high school. Can you tell?)
It's cute furry animal day here today, obviously. Have a look at the photo in the story above. It's a very cute rabbit. (Can you tickle them, I wonder?) According to the article:
They are the smallest rabbits in the United States and one of only two types in North America that dig their own burrows. Adults weigh about a pound, and measure a foot long
In the US, they are releasing them into the wild to revive a very small natural population.
It strikes me as a little odd that in some countries rabbits can live without causing environmental havoc, yet in Australia they became a devastating plague. (And Queensland is still so paranoid about them that you still can't even own one as a pet.)
I guess it all something to do with natural predators, and delicate balances, etc. I don't know, I sort of regret that squirrels were never imported here.
(I didn't so biology as a separate subject in high school. Can you tell?)
It couldn't happen to a better class..
BA sorry for first class body mishap.
From the above ABC story:
British Airways has issued an apology after cabin crew put the body of a woman who died on a flight to India in a vacant first class seat....
After she died, crew members moved her from an economy seat into a vacant first class seat where they strapped her in with a seatbelt and propped up the body with pillows.
Can't say that I had ever thought before about what they would do with a dead body on a flight.
From the above ABC story:
British Airways has issued an apology after cabin crew put the body of a woman who died on a flight to India in a vacant first class seat....
After she died, crew members moved her from an economy seat into a vacant first class seat where they strapped her in with a seatbelt and propped up the body with pillows.
Can't say that I had ever thought before about what they would do with a dead body on a flight.
How to tickle a rat
What Happens When You Tickle a Lab Rat? See for Yourself - TierneyLab - Science - New York Times Blog
This New York Times story above links to a video showing rats being tickled. At first I thought that maybe the squeaking sound they make (only made audible by electronics) might actually indicate annoyance or something else. But when you see then chasing the tickling hand in a manner that looks playful, that seems very unlikely.
What a fun job: investigating how to give rats pleasure.
This New York Times story above links to a video showing rats being tickled. At first I thought that maybe the squeaking sound they make (only made audible by electronics) might actually indicate annoyance or something else. But when you see then chasing the tickling hand in a manner that looks playful, that seems very unlikely.
What a fun job: investigating how to give rats pleasure.
All about Moon dust
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Lunar dust 'may harm astronauts'
This is an interesting, fairly lengthy article about the problems moon dust may cause for astronaut's health. Same thing may apply on Mars too, I think I have read elsewhere.
This is an interesting, fairly lengthy article about the problems moon dust may cause for astronaut's health. Same thing may apply on Mars too, I think I have read elsewhere.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
A surprising survey
Iraqis: life is getting better-News-World-Iraq-TimesOnline
I wouldn't have expected this:
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.
Yet in the next paragraph, it says:
By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
I guess what it doesn't answer is when the locals want the multinational forces to leave. But it is a bit odd that the survey indicates support for the current security operations, but that they also want the main troops doing it to leave.
I wouldn't have expected this:
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.
Yet in the next paragraph, it says:
By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
I guess what it doesn't answer is when the locals want the multinational forces to leave. But it is a bit odd that the survey indicates support for the current security operations, but that they also want the main troops doing it to leave.
What is going on in Spain?
Large Iraq war protests across Spain | International | Reuters
Don't they have anything better to do other than making very sexually explicit art house films and protesting against a war they no longer have any part in? They are even protesting against sending troops in to support Afghanistan. Just how many socialists want to see the Taliban back in power?
Don't they have anything better to do other than making very sexually explicit art house films and protesting against a war they no longer have any part in? They are even protesting against sending troops in to support Afghanistan. Just how many socialists want to see the Taliban back in power?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)